------- Comment #17 from jan at epgmod dot phys dot tue dot nl 2010-02-17 23:28 ------- (In reply to comment #16) > Which regression?!? Nothing changed in this code for *years*.
I use std::complex<double>. With gcc-4.5.0 the performance of c*f is three times worse than with gcc.4.4.x. That regression. And the c*f zero-signs are wrong at present. And performance can only be restored by specifying -fno-signed-zeros. Which makes even more signs wrong. Which is all fixed by the proposed 4-line patch. The bottom line is: I think the math-oriented libstdc++ users will be unhappy with the present state of affairs. And that is sad. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43108
